ADVERTISEMENT
Published: July 12, 2008
Editor:
Charley Reese must have been having a lapse in his usually acute mental process when he wrote the column "What's All the Fuss About Marriage?" He sure missed on this one.
If the California court ruling just sanctioned marriage between people of the same sex who are of legal age they should have said so. As the Los Angeles Times reported, however, "The majority opinion by Chief Justice Ronald M. George declared that any law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation will from this point on be constitutionally suspect in California in the same way (as) laws that discriminate by race or gender."
Look up the term in the legal world and one will find there is no definition of "sexual orientation." This wording of the legal opinion does not widen the definition of marriage it makes in open ended.
If sexual orientation is not legally defined, how soon will a man claim his orientation is for young boys or a female teacher hers is for 14-year-old boys? Could a polygamist move his harem and their children to California and marry them all?
One last thing: Charley's lame reference to homophobes shows how weak the whole column was.
Ellis Bond
New Port Richey
ADVERTISEMENT
Advertisement
TBO.com - Tampa Bay Online ©2009 Media General Communications Holdings, LLC. A Media General company. Member Agreement | Privacy Statement | Work With Us
| * To: | |
| Your Name: | |
| Your Email Address: | |
| Personal Message [optional]: | |